Ex Parte Han

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

11316998 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111316,998 12/27/2005
58027 7590 06/15/2016
RC PARK & ASSOCIATES, PLC
1894 PRESTON WHITE DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20191
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yong-Hee Han
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
P3287USOO 3534
EXAMINER
KASSIM, KHALED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
PATENT@PARK-LAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG-HEE HAN
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Technology Center 2400
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
STATEMENT OF CASE 1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20. 2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to controlling coupling between
communication terminals for audio-video communication. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A system to control coupling between communication
terminals for audio-video communication with a third
communication terminal having video and audio communication
functions, the system comprising:
a first communication terminal to perform reciprocal
recognition with a second communication terminal using a wired
or wireless local area network (LAN); to establish a first speech
path for video communication with the third communication
terminal to set up a coupling with the second communication
terminal, and to perform video communication with the third
communication terminal using the first speech path; and
the second communication terminal to perform reciprocal
recognition with the first communication terminal using the
wired or wireless LAN, to establish a second speech path for
audio communication corresponding to the video
communication with the third communication terminal to set up
the coupling with the first communication terminal, to perform
1 Our decision makes reference to Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed December 3, 2013), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed May 20, 2013),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed October 17, 2013) and Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed December 4, 2012).
2 Claims 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 19 have been objected to and indicated as
containing allowable subject matter. Final Act. 17-18.
2
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
the audio communication with the third communication terminal
using the second speech path, and to transmit a lip-sync packet
to the first communication terminal.
App. Br. 28 (Claims App'x).
Firestone et al.
Campbell et al.
REFERENCES
US 2005/0078171 Al
US 2007/0186002 Al
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Apr. 14, 2005 3
Aug. 9, 20074
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Campbell. Final Act. 2-3.
Claims 1---6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of Campbell and
Firestone. Final Act. 3-1 7.
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that Campbell discloses using a
"coupling identification code" to check the coupling mode between first and
second communication terminals, as required in independent claim 7?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Campbell and
Firestone teaches performing "reciprocal recognition" between first and
second communication terminals, as required in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Campbell and
Firestone teaches "establish[ing] a first speech path for video
3 Application filed November 6, 2003.
4 Application filed March 27, 2002.
3
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
communication with the third communication terminal to set up a coupling
with the second communication terminal, and ... perform[ing] video
communication with the third communication terminal using the first speech
path" and "establish[ing] a second speech path for audio communication
corresponding to the video communication with the third communication
terminal to set up the coupling with the first communication terminal, [and] .
. . perform[ing] the audio communication with the third communication
terminal using the second speech path," as recited in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Campbell and
Firestone teaches transmitting a lip-sync packet to the first communication
terminal, as required in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine Campbell and
Firestone to reject claims 1-5?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Campbell and
Firestone teaches "restoring a coupling between the first and second
communication terminals if the first communication terminal is to be
coupled with the second communication terminal," as recited in independent
claim 11, and similarly recited in independent claim 15?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Campbell and
Firestone teaches "a recognition code where a media access control (MAC)
address of the second communication terminal is coded at a liquid crystal
display (LCD) window of the second communication terminal," as recited in
independent claim 18?
ANALYSIS
Claim 7
4
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Independent claim 7 recites a "coupling identification code" that is
used to check the coupling mode between first and second communication
terminals. The Examiner interprets "a coupling" as a connection between
two points, and "a coupling identification code" as a code that indicates that
there is a coupling between two points. Ans. 2-3. Appellant contends that
the Examiner's interpretation of "coupling identification code" is erroneous
because the Examiner has misinterpreted the meaning of the term
"coupling." App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 4---6. Appellant argues, based upon
its usage in Appellant's Specification, the term "coupling" should be
interpreted to enable "first and second communication terminals ... to
operate as if they were a single phone." App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. i-f 86). We
disagree.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, there is no express definition for
the term "coupling" or a "coupling identification code" in Appellant's
Specification that would mandate such an interpretation. Ans. 2. We do not
see anything in the portions of the Specification cited by Appellant that
would limit the term in the manner Appellant suggests. Furthermore, the
Examiner's interpretation of a "coupling identification code," indicated
above, is commensurate with the description found in paragraph 91 of
Appellant's Specification. That paragraph indicates that a "coupling
identification code" is a code for verification of a coupling. See Spec. i-f 91.
The Examiner also finds that Campbell's caller ID information that
identifies the parties on a call discloses a "coupling identification code"
because the information indicates that the parties' terminals are connected.
Final Act. 2-3 (citing Campbell i-fi-1141-144, 330); Ans. 2-3 (citing
Campbell i-fi-1330, 366, 379, 423, 455). The Examiner further finds that
5
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Campbell uses this coupling identification code to establish a coupling mode
between the party terminals. Ans. 3.
Appellant argues Campbell does not use the identification of callers in
the caller ID as the coupling identification code to check the coupling mode
because Campbell instead teaches checking the coupling mode to generate
the coupling identification code (i.e., the caller ID information). See App.
Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 6. Rather than citing the portions of Campbell that
support this argument, Appellant argues that it would have been apparent to
a person having ordinary skill in the art that information regarding the
parties and type of call would need to be checked before the incoming call
indication is displayed to a user. Reply Br. 6. We do not find Appellant's
argument persuasive.
Appellant's argument amounts to attorney argument without
supporting evidence, and does not explain sufficiently why the Examiner's
citations and analysis of Campbell are incorrect. Additionally, Appellant
has not provided sufficient evidence that using Campbell's caller ID
information to check the coupling mode would be uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 7.
Claims 1-5
First, claim 1 recites first and second communication terminals to
perform "reciprocal recognition" with each other to establish speech paths
for audio and video communication to a third terminal. The Examiner finds
that Campbell's recognized awareness that linked terminals on a conference
call are connected for data transmission teaches the required reciprocal
6
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
recognition. See Final Act. 4 (citing Campbell il 228). We agree with the
Examiner.
Appellant argues that Campbell fails to teach performing "reciprocal
recognition" because "reciprocal recognition" is defined in the Specification
as "corresponding to 'a preparation process for future coupling setup,"'
between first and second terminals. App. Br. 17 (citing Spec. i-f 66,
Campbell i-f 130). We note that the section of the Specification cited by
Appellant as defining "reciprocal recognition" does not expressly define the
term. See Spec. i-fi-1 65---66 (describing "an embodiment" of the disclosed
invention). Even so, Appellant's argument fails to address the Examiner's
specific findings regarding the disclosure of Campbell. Thus, we do not find
Appellant's argument to be persuasive.
Next, claim 1 recites the first and second communication terminals to
"establish a first speech path for video communication with the third
communication terminal to set up a coupling with the second
communication terminal, and to perform video communication with the third
communication terminal using the first speech path" and to "establish a
second speech path for audio communication corresponding to the video
communication with the third communication terminal to set up the coupling
with the first communication terminal, to perform the audio communication
with the third communication terminal using the second speech path."
Appellant argues that Firestone fails to teach the disputed limitations
because Firestone's system does not combine the audio of the second speech
path with the corresponding video of the first speech path. App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 7-8. We do not find this argument persuasive.
7
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Claim 1 requires first and second speech paths for audio and video
communication between first, second, and third terminals, such that the
video and its corresponding audio are coupled together. The Examiner relies
upon Firestone's media call legs as the claimed speech paths that connect the
terminals together via media bridges to transmit corresponding audio and
video communication. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Firestone i-f 69); Ans. 4. We
agree with the Examiner because Firestone's media call legs connect each of
the terminals for the transmission of audio and corresponding video
communication. See Firestone i-f 69. Therefore, all terminals in Firestone,
including first, second, and third terminals, are connected via media call legs
(speech paths) for corresponding audio and visual communication.
Claim 1 also requires the transmission of a lip-sync packet to the first
communication terminal from the second communication terminal.
Appellant argues that Firestone fails to teach the transmission of a lip-sync
packet from the second terminal to the first terminal. App. Br. 18; Reply Br.
8-9. Instead, Appellant contends that Firestone generally teaches the "the
need for introducing an intermediate media switch for providing more
elaborate audio and video services, such as lip-syncing." App. Br. 18 (citing
Firestone i-f 69); Reply Br. 8-9.
As indicated above, we find that Firestone teaches connecting first
and second terminals via media call legs for audio and visual
communication. Additionally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Firestone explicitly teaches the transmission of lip-sync packets between
terminals, not just an indication of a need to be able to send lip-sync packets.
Final Act. 4--5 (citing Firestone i-f 69). Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellant's arguments.
8
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Lastly, Appellant argues that Firestone fails to provide a motivation to
combine the teachings of Campbell and Firestone in the manner claimed
and, therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness to reject claims 1-5 is not
established. App. Br. 19-20; Reply Br. 9-10.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellant's argument that
Firestone must provide explicit motivation to combine the two references as
set forth in the claim relies on a standard that is not required. "[T]he
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Rather, the obviousness rejection must be based on "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." Id. (quoting In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Here, the Examiner's proffered reasoning to combine Firestone's data
management methods and optimization of audio/video conferencing systems
comprising edge call routing with the conferencing system of Campbell is to
improve Campbell's video and audio transmission. Final Act. 5 (citing
Firestone i-fi-15, 52, 55-56); Ans. 4--5. Therefore, Appellant's argument that
the Examiner does not provide a sufficient motivation to incorporate edge
call routing into Campbell's media transmission system does not reveal error
in the Examiner's rationale. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred by combining Campbell and Firestone.
9
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Therefore, for all the reasons indicated above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-5 that depend upon claim 1
and are not argued substantively. 5
Claim 6
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claim 6 as with
claim 1. App. Br. 20---21. Because we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 6 for the same reasons.
Claim 9
Claim 9 depends from claim 7. Appellant argues that the secondary
reference of Firestone does not cure the deficiencies with respect to
Campbell. App. Br. 21. Additionally, Appellant argues that there is no
motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 21. However, because we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7, as indicated above, and because
we find that the Examiner provided sufficient motivation to combine the
references, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 9.
Claims 11, 14, and 15
Appellant argues that although Firestone may teach how call legs are
set up to couple first and second communication terminals, Firestone fails to
"restor[ e] a coupling between the first and second communication terminals
if the first communication terminal is to be coupled with the second
communication terminal," as recited in independent claim 11, and similarly
5 See App. Br. 20.
10
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
recited in independent claim 15. App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 11-12. We do
not find this argument persuasive.
The Examiner finds Firestone teaches the use of edge call routing
between first and second terminals to connect the terminals for the
transmission of mixed audio and video communications. Final Act. 12
(citing Firestone i-f 69); Ans. 5---6. The Examiner further finds that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant's invention that the coupling between first and second
communication terminals is restored when the media switches are powered
on because the connection between the terminals is only established
(coupled) when power is supplied to the media switches between the
terminals. See Ans. 5---6 (citing Firestone i-f 69). Firestone teaches each
media switch registers its audio and video transmission capabilities with its
system at startup. See Firestone i-f 36. This registration process makes the
system aware of the media switches and their media processing functions,
thereby allowing the coupling between terminals to be restored. See id.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the coupling between
communications terminals in Firestone is restored because the supply of
power to the media switches at startup re-stablishes the connection between
terminals.
Accordingly, for the reason indicated above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 11 and 15, and claims 14 and 1 7
that depend from claims 11 and 15, respectively, and are not argued
substantively. 6
Claims 18 and 20
6 See App. Br. 22-24.
11
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
Appellant argues that Firestone fails to teach "a recognition code
where a media access control (MAC) address of the second communication
terminal is coded at a liquid crystal display (LCD) window of the second
communication terminal," as recited in independent claim 18. App. Br. 24--
25; Reply Br. 13-15. Specifically, Appellant argues that although
Campbell's incoming call indicator may provide information about the
caller's identification, the call indicator does not necessarily include a MAC
address. App. Br. 24-25; Reply Br. 13-15. Additionally, Appellant argues
that the Examiner is using impermissible hindsight to interpret Campbell's
indicator to include the required address. App. Br. 24--25; Reply Br. 13-15.
The Examiner finds that Campbell's incoming call indicator can
include the MAC address of the terminals to be connected because the call
indicator contains information associated with the call, including the address
of the parties involved in the call. Final Act. 15-16 (citing Campbell i-f 142);
Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds that a person having ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention would have understood that the incoming call
indicator would include a MAC address. Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant's argument is not persuasive
because it fails to explain why the Examiner is incorrect in finding that a
person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have
understood that Campbell's incoming call indicator includes a MAC address
in light of the fact the indicator includes party address information.
For all of the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 18, and claim 20 that was not argued with separately.
CONCLUSION
12
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
The Examiner did not err in finding that Campbell discloses using a
"coupling identification code" to check the coupling mode between first and
second communication terminals, as required in independent claim 7.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Campbell
and Firestone teaches performing "reciprocal recognition" between first and
second communication terminals, as required in independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Campbell
and Firestone teaches "establish[ing] a first speech path for video
communication with the third communication terminal to set up a coupling
with the second communication terminal, and ... perform[ing] video
communication with the third communication terminal using the first speech
path" and "establish[ing] a second speech path for audio communication
corresponding to the video communication with the third communication
terminal to set up the coupling with the first communication terminal, [and] .
. . perform[ing] the audio communication with the third communication
terminal using the second speech path," as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Campbell
and Firestone teaches transmitting a lip-sync packet to the first
communication terminal as required in independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Campbell
and Firestone to reject claims 1-5.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Campbell
and Firestone teaches "restoring a coupling between the first and second
communication terminals if the first communication terminal is to be
coupled with the second communication terminal," as recited in independent
claim 11, and similarly recited in independent claim 15.
13
Appeal2014-002190
Application 11/316,998
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Campbell
and Firestone teaches "a recognition code where a media access control
(MAC) address of the second communication terminal is coded at a liquid
crystal display (LCD) window of the second communication terminal," as
recited in claim 18.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Campbell is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combination of
Campbell and Firestone is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
14